Were the brothers in Matthew 13:55 Mary's sons?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I confirmed Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's brothers, as in its definition "near kinsman, or relative", and proved they were the sons of Josephs brother and his wife, and thus were Jesus's cousins.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
The same one the jews worshiped. These same jews who crucified Christ becaus Christ told them their religion could not save them?
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
once again
Mary did not Carry God. She carried a flesh body that God would enter to become God man.
Jesus did not enter the child until he was already born.
If Mary needed to be perfect. by practice mary's mother would have to be perfect as would her mother and her mother and her mother etc etc..
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
It will not help your case though..
I could say i would give my life also.. it does not mean I am right..
There's only one God, so that's who I'm referring to. Do you believe there's not only one God?
Where in Scripture or anywhere else is that said?
Why? Also, so, you don't think God is capable of preserving Mary's soul from original sin?
I'm not presenting a case so as to convince others. I'm just being honest.
If your conviction is strong enough, you'll try to refute the evidence in the opening post of my thread then.
Last edited:
Did I say Noahs Ark and the Ark of the Covenant are symbolically held within the Blessed Virgin Mary? Let's see if you read what I said in post #31.
How can you be done trying to convince me by logic, when you haven't even attempted to refute my post #47, which is a reply to your opening post? Can't refute the Truth?
I haven't assumed anything. You're the one who said, "...scriptures plainly state that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary (his wife) until after Jesus was born, (Matt 1:25)...". You're literally altering Matt. 1:25 by inserting the word "after" after the word "until" to make the verse mean what you want it to, which is that Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth.
For the sake of argument, say the word "until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth, that in itself wouldn't prove Mary bore more children because, for example, having vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation for some men and women. Sometimes the woman is barren or the man is sterile, etc. Note: I'm not saying either of these circumstances is the case with Joseph and Mary.
Without any alterations to Matt. 1:25, the verse actually states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one you're inferring by your insertion of the word "after".
Your argument that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 4 more kids" at the end is quite random. It also isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:
The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point, to dispel any belief that he was the father. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.
You assume those siblings to be Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3. However, I've not only confirmed they were Jesus's brothers, as in "near kinsman, or relative", but I've also shown they were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.
Last edited:
Here it is in all the popular Bible versions….please tell me how these versions got it wrong when using the word “until” means exactly what it says.
This preposition means “up to the point in time or the event mentioned”….Mary and Joseph were married and naturally expected to have other children, but Joseph respected the fact that Mary’s child was holy to God and did not consummate their marriage “until” after she had given birth. There is not a single scripture that argues with that fact.
Matthew 1:25 — The New International Version (NIV)
25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — King James Version (KJV 1900)
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Matthew 1:25 — New Living Translation (NLT)
25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — The New King James Version (NKJV)
25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — New Century Version (NCV)
25 but he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to the son. And Joseph named him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — American Standard Version (ASV)
25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.Matthew 1:25 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
25 and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
25 He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
25 but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — The Lexham English Bible (LEB)
25 and did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — New International Reader’s Version (1998) (NIrV)
25 But he did not make love to her until after she gave birth to a son. And Joseph gave him the name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 — New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95)
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he calledHis name Jesus.Mary was not “ever virgin” as your church teaches to promote its false doctrines concerning the mother of Jesus. Mary is NEVER called “ the mother of God” in the only source that I accept as truth.….period.
She and her husband had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth, and they rightly expected to produce other children because all children are a blessing from God.
This is nothing but desperate justification, trying to make your belief true…..but your church is not teaching the truth.
You said, "...scriptures plainly state that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary (his wife) until after Jesus was born, (Matt 1:25)...". You are the one literally altering Matt. 1:25 by inserting the word "after" after the word "until" to make the verse mean what you want it to, which is that Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth. None of those translations do that, except New International Reader’s Version (1998) (NIrV). In Koine Greek, the verse actually states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son."
Your argument that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 4 more kids" at the end is quite random. It also isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:
The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father. In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to show what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, so as to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by him, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Why would implying Joseph had or didn't have intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth be relevant, when it's only about Jesus's paternal origin? It's not relevant, which is another reason why the definition of "until" that you're applying doesn't fit here, but rather "up to the time that," because it informs us what Joseph didn't do until a certain point, not what occurred after that point, to dispel any belief that he was the father. The importance of Matt. 1:20-25 is that it primarily pertains to the messianic prophecy, not the sexual relationship, or lack thereof, between Joseph and Mary.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
My Royal Flush beats your hand. Confining single words in scripture (i.e. "brother") to only one meaning that suits you is cheating. Besides, your new age theology is less than 200 years old. Even John Calvin called Helvetius, the first to teach Mary had other children, an ignoramus. Then there's Martin Luther himself, who upheld the PVM with devotion.
The fact that you can legally oppose the reformers with such fad theology and remain a Christian makes you a true Protestant. That I can bet on.
I posted 2 links for honest inquirers' who want to know; and how your modernist errors are easily demolished. In addition, here's a massive index about Mary for the benefit of honest inquirers.
The mother of Jesus has One True Spouse, she is not some kind of pass-around.
Last edited:
Fun Fact: In the days of the early Church, over 2,000 years ago, Christians knew the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual Virgin and didn't have other children, to the point where those who opposed this were called "Antidicomarianites" meaning "those who oppose Mary". It was and still is considered heresy to teach otherwise.
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
Where did you get that fun fact about people 2,000 years ago? What's the source of that information? By the way it wasn't 23 AD or older but it came about in 3rd to 5th century.
From what ive read of it, the word was invented by Epiphanius of Salamis. And that's the only account of anybody saying the word. The sec isn't mentioned anywhere else, I question rather that was a genuine sec.
Last edited:
I learned it by researching the writings of early Christians. You should try it.
Antidicomarianites
• An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the opponents of Mary Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006. Antidicomarianites Antidicomarianites
catholicism.en-academic.com
CHURCH FATHERS: Home
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
Last edited:
Similar threads
